Jordan's 3

[logical_art]

he would have been even greater if he had been elite from 3 when he did play. maybe he would have won more titles. but he didn't

i'm sorry, but i'm not buying this idea that any elite competitor doesn't want to be elite at everything

there is, however, a general knowledge that exists now due to analytics that the 3 pt shot is more important than people of prior eras tended to recognize. and MJ, while stubborn, was willing to bend to coaching (see the triangle offense). so i'm sure that if he were playing today he'd focus more on the 3 and less on the mid-range shot

i should note that lebron's 3 pt % has varied quite significantly of the course of his career as well. excluding his rookie year, his % has ranged from 30.9 to 40.6 with attempts ranging from 2.4 to 6.4

it's also interesting that lebron was shooting 35.1% at age 20 on average volume, which is above his career average. same goes for his FT shooting: 75% at age 20, slightly above career average

I'm equally shocked by how little LeBron's game has evolved and how effective he still is.

he was quite evolved at a very young age. i am surprised that his shooting percentages haven't improved though

He was advanced in that he was incredibly physically gift with a really high IQ but I dont think he was or is super skilled. He doesn't have great footwork or a great array of moves. And as you point out, his shooting hasn't improved.

[HomoSapien]

At least during the second three-peat, you never felt like Jordan was a liability from downtown and you always expected his three to go in. Back then, coaches would teach you to take a step in if you had an open three. The thinking was that a three-pointer is a fairly low percentage shot, and you were making it easier on yourself by taking the step in. Ron Harper would take that step in all the time. It was just a different mentality, and given how determined Jordan is you have to assume he'd be a heck of a three-point shooter in this era.

[MrFortune3]

Jordan took the shots he was most comfortable with taking and confident in making. The NBA is a completely different monster today with the massive amounts of 3 pointers taken. Good shooters and bad alike take 3's in this era. They are given the green light to, in the 90's era, they would have been benched for taking those type of shots and not making them.

[JohnnyKILLroy]

Come on this is Jordan we’re talking about.

One of the greatest shooters of all time from midrange.

In today’s era we’d be looking at him busting people up with unblockable turnaround fade-away 3s.

[thedarkstark]

I'm equally shocked by how little LeBron's game has evolved and how effective he still is.

he was quite evolved at a very young age. i am surprised that his shooting percentages haven't improved though

He was advanced in that he was incredibly physically gift with a really high IQ but I dont think he was or is super skilled. He doesn't have great footwork or a great array of moves. And as you point out, his shooting hasn't improved.

I very much dislike Lebron and you won't often catch me taking his side on anything but I have to disagree. While he may not have a go-to move his ability to finish around the rim is incredible and that takes a tremendous amount of skill. Obviously shots around the rim are the easiest but how often do you see guys blow layups? They're nowhere near as easy as he makes them look, just see Kris Dunn or if we want to compare one physically gifted player for another Dwight Howard.

And as far as footwork goes, you're right in that it's not going to end up in any textbooks as "fundamentally sound" but again his ability to avoid/evade defenders without taking charges or turning the ball over is unparalleled for a guy his size.

Take away most of the insane physical gifts and Lebron still has a Dwyane Wade-like career imo.

[Leslie Forman]

This is the "Ichiro could hit home runs if he wanted to" of basketball, there's just enough and nowhere near enough evidence for any angle to be argued plausibly.

I lean towards he'd be Kobe/LeBron-ish from 3. Decent enough to require cover but not particularly good at it.

[dougthonus]

He was advanced in that he was incredibly physically gift with a really high IQ but I dont think he was or is super skilled. He doesn't have great footwork or a great array of moves. And as you point out, his shooting hasn't improved.

He's a Ttremendous ball handler, tremendous passer, amazing body control, elite finisher, and has a huge array of moves to beat you to the basket or get his shot off. He's not an elite jump shooter, but that's about all he's lacking, and he's certainly more than capable as a jump shooter.

[logical_art]

He was advanced in that he was incredibly physically gift with a really high IQ but I dont think he was or is super skilled. He doesn't have great footwork or a great array of moves. And as you point out, his shooting hasn't improved.

He's a Ttremendous ball handler, tremendous passer, amazing body control, elite finisher, and has a huge array of moves to beat you to the basket or get his shot off. He's not an elite jump shooter, but that's about all he's lacking, and he's certainly more than capable as a jump shooter.

Yes I guess I shouldn't have said he's not super skilled. He came into the league as a great ball handler, passer and finisher. He hasn't improved there and neither has his jump shot. He doesn't' have good footwork or any great moves or countermoves still after all these years.

And I strongly disagree that he's got elite body control. He's just bigger, stronger and more athletic than almost everyone. But when's the last time you saw him do a double clutch or an up and under like MJ?

[dice]

This is the "Ichiro could hit home runs if he wanted to" of basketball, there's just enough and nowhere near enough evidence for any angle to be argued plausibly.

I lean towards he'd be Kobe/LeBron-ish from 3. Decent enough to require cover but not particularly good at it.

MJ and kobe had the same % and lebron is only a little ahead. i'm confident that MJ would have been a better 3 pt shooter than lebron had he come up in this era. how much better is the question. i think MJ could have gone for a 37% career average. and that's probably generous. his best season w/ the line at normal distance was 37.6%. for comparison's sake, durant and beal are at 38% for their careers. so was dirk. all considered terrific shooters. lillard is only at 37%, but his volume is very high, which jordan's would not be in any era. could jordan have matched lillard on lower volume? yeah, maybe. particularly given that MJ would be given that shot by defenders

[dougthonus]

MJ and kobe had the same % and lebron is only a little ahead. i'm confident that MJ would have been a better 3 pt shooter than lebron had he come up in this era. how much better is the question. i think MJ could have gone for a 37% career average. and that's probably generous. his best season w/ the line at normal distance was 37.6%. for comparison's sake, durant and beal are at 38% for their careers. so was dirk. all considered terrific shooters. lillard is only at 37%, but his volume is very high, which jordan's would not be in any era. could jordan have matched lillard on lower volume? yeah, maybe. particularly given that MJ would be given that shot by defenders

Percentages are always a poor way to look at threes IMO. Great three point shooters are the ones who can get threes whenever they want in a variety of ways at reasonable percentages. Can he hit them off the dribble? With a step back? While contested? Jordan clearly could do all of these things with mid range shots at a super elite level.

We're only talking about adding range, not developing all these other attributes and shot making ability. If he developed the range, then he likely would have been able to ramp up to massive volume on his threes. I think you'd have seen something closer to James Harden. Especially the way Jordan would psychopathically work on his game. You might have seen post up turn around threes out of Jordan in this era.

[wickywack]

MJ and kobe had the same % and lebron is only a little ahead. i'm confident that MJ would have been a better 3 pt shooter than lebron had he come up in this era. how much better is the question. i think MJ could have gone for a 37% career average. and that's probably generous. his best season w/ the line at normal distance was 37.6%. for comparison's sake, durant and beal are at 38% for their careers. so was dirk. all considered terrific shooters. lillard is only at 37%, but his volume is very high, which jordan's would not be in any era. could jordan have matched lillard on lower volume? yeah, maybe. particularly given that MJ would be given that shot by defenders

Percentages are always a poor way to look at threes IMO. Great three point shooters are the ones who can get threes whenever they want in a variety of ways at reasonable percentages. Can he hit them off the dribble? With a step back? While contested? Jordan clearly could do all of these things with mid range shots at a super elite level.

We're only talking about adding range, not developing all these other attributes and shot making ability. If he developed the range, then he likely would have been able to ramp up to massive volume on his threes. I think you'd have seen something closer to James Harden. Especially the way Jordan would psychopathically work on his game. You might have seen post up turn around threes out of Jordan in this era.

While I suspect Jordan could easily have shot the 3 at both higher volume and efficiency had he made it a bigger part of his game, I'm not so sure it would have been a good idea in the grand scheme of things.

I think we over-index today on TS% and, therefore, 3P%. Overall offensive efficiency - i.e., points produced per possession (ORtg) - is a more meaningful metric to me. Jordan's Bulls were already among the greatest offenses of all time by this measure - about on par with recent Golden State teams. Why mess with a good thing?

If you want to look at an individual level, here are the top seasons for 30+ PPG scorers in NBA history by ORtg.

Michael Jordan has 6 of the top 11 seasons.

I don't think the game is that fundamentally different today. Giannis would be the likely MVP this year. He shoots the 3 worse than MJ (this year and career). Yet, if he scored just 0.4 PPG more, he'd qualify for top 25 on the list above. Lebron (the likely runner up) shoots the 3 only slightly better than Mike did and is also pretty efficient by this measure.

[Shill]

Just to complete the thread:

Watch on YouTube

[dice]

MJ and kobe had the same % and lebron is only a little ahead. i'm confident that MJ would have been a better 3 pt shooter than lebron had he come up in this era. how much better is the question. i think MJ could have gone for a 37% career average. and that's probably generous. his best season w/ the line at normal distance was 37.6%. for comparison's sake, durant and beal are at 38% for their careers. so was dirk. all considered terrific shooters. lillard is only at 37%, but his volume is very high, which jordan's would not be in any era. could jordan have matched lillard on lower volume? yeah, maybe. particularly given that MJ would be given that shot by defenders

Percentages are always a poor way to look at threes IMO. Great three point shooters are the ones who can get threes whenever they want in a variety of ways at reasonable percentages. Can he hit them off the dribble? With a step back? While contested? Jordan clearly could do all of these things with mid range shots at a super elite level.

We're only talking about adding range, not developing all these other attributes and shot making ability. If he developed the range, then he likely would have been able to ramp up to massive volume on his threes. I think you'd have seen something closer to James Harden. Especially the way Jordan would psychopathically work on his game. You might have seen post up turn around threes out of Jordan in this era.

While I suspect Jordan could easily have shot the 3 at both higher volume and efficiency had he made it a bigger part of his game, I'm not so sure it would have been a good idea in the grand scheme of things.

I think we over-index today on TS% and, therefore, 3P%. Overall offensive efficiency - i.e., points produced per possession (ORtg) - is a more meaningful metric to me. Jordan's Bulls were already among the greatest offenses of all time by this measure - about on par with recent Golden State teams. Why mess with a good thing?

If you want to look at an individual level, here are the top seasons for 30+ PPG scorers in NBA history by ORtg.

Michael Jordan has 6 of the top 11 seasons.

I don't think the game is that fundamentally different today. Giannis would be the likely MVP this year. He shoots the 3 worse than MJ (this year and career). Yet, if he scored just 0.4 PPG more, he'd qualify for top 25 on the list above. Lebron (the likely runner up) shoots the 3 only slightly better than Mike did and is also pretty efficient by this measure.

ORTG is designed as a team stat, not an individual stat

[wickywack]

Percentages are always a poor way to look at threes IMO. Great three point shooters are the ones who can get threes whenever they want in a variety of ways at reasonable percentages. Can he hit them off the dribble? With a step back? While contested? Jordan clearly could do all of these things with mid range shots at a super elite level.

We're only talking about adding range, not developing all these other attributes and shot making ability. If he developed the range, then he likely would have been able to ramp up to massive volume on his threes. I think you'd have seen something closer to James Harden. Especially the way Jordan would psychopathically work on his game. You might have seen post up turn around threes out of Jordan in this era.

While I suspect Jordan could easily have shot the 3 at both higher volume and efficiency had he made it a bigger part of his game, I'm not so sure it would have been a good idea in the grand scheme of things.

I think we over-index today on TS% and, therefore, 3P%. Overall offensive efficiency - i.e., points produced per possession (ORtg) - is a more meaningful metric to me. Jordan's Bulls were already among the greatest offenses of all time by this measure - about on par with recent Golden State teams. Why mess with a good thing?

If you want to look at an individual level, here are the top seasons for 30+ PPG scorers in NBA history by ORtg.

Michael Jordan has 6 of the top 11 seasons.

I don't think the game is that fundamentally different today. Giannis would be the likely MVP this year. He shoots the 3 worse than MJ (this year and career). Yet, if he scored just 0.4 PPG more, he'd qualify for top 25 on the list above. Lebron (the likely runner up) shoots the 3 only slightly better than Mike did and is also pretty efficient by this measure.

ORTG is designed as a team stat, not an individual stat

There are two versions of ORTG: a team version and an individual one. I'm using both above. The team version is more straightforward, and it shows those Bulls were among the most efficient teams of all time already.

The individual one is more an estimate: "Individual offensive rating is the number of points produced by a player per hundred total individual possessions. In other words, 'How many points is a player likely to generate when he tries?'". I'm not claiming it's a perfect measure, but it's better than just focusing on shooting percentages. It suggests Jordan's role in the offense might have already been close to optimal.

[dougthonus]

While I suspect Jordan could easily have shot the 3 at both higher volume and efficiency had he made it a bigger part of his game, I'm not so sure it would have been a good idea in the grand scheme of things.

I think we over-index today on TS% and, therefore, 3P%. Overall offensive efficiency - i.e., points produced per possession (ORtg) - is a more meaningful metric to me. Jordan's Bulls were already among the greatest offenses of all time by this measure - about on par with recent Golden State teams. Why mess with a good thing?

Really just depends on how well Jordan could shoot the three with practice vs how well he was shooting those mid range twos. There aren't a lot of numbers in Jordan's career (only the last two seasons) where we can see his percentages from midrange. Say he was around 50% on those types of shots. If he was 38% from three and his foul rate was 2/3rds from 3 as it was on mid range shots (both pretty reasonable assumptions) then his points per possession should rise.

Granted, you could argue that being at the three point line might have given defenders more time to stop his drive since he was starting from a further distance (or that he'd have more of a head of steam attacking the basket and be even harder to stop as there'd be more total space and Jordan being the most athletic would have a greater advantage than the defender).

I don't know that it would have made a big difference in his career either way though or suggesting Jordan was a lesser player for not shooting those threes. What falls through the cracks to some degree is just how amazing Jordan was at those mid range shots and how no one else is really replicating that today. Clearly if you could hit the mid range shot like Jordan, it's worth taking. Kawhi is probably the only comparable guy.

[troza]

Well... in the last playoffs he seemed to be off on that mid-range game than before. Sure, some amazing streches but I some where nothing was going in.

I ended with the impression that he didn't make his first shot in all his games in the finals...

But that could be fatigue of going 35 playing lots of minutes all season long.

[Grodoboldo]

This is something I've spoken of quite a few times.
I've watched a TON of games (full) in the 80s, Jordan at his peak and prior.

It's important to know that Jordan almost never took 3's. The bulk of his 3's were far-away or contested buzzer beaters. That's why his percentages are abysmal.

To believe that this guy could score at will, hanging in the air, near the 3 point line, have an absurd free throw percentage, but hit .167 of 3's is a ridiculous notion (I'm not addressing you, but the myth created by ... well whomever).

Whenever he chose to shoot 3's, his percentages were really good. Like, really good.
And yes, this includes before the 3 point line was shifted closer, like in his first three-peat, where he shot .430 from the arc in the finals collectively on very high volume for the time.

And it's not just my watching that knows this, but Jordan confirmed this himself, stating that he can hit 3's and chooses not to, then demolishing Clyde with a 3-point barrage. It should also be mentioned that the perimeter was guarded very close back then because you could hand-check and push back whenever someone drove, and fouls weren't called if light.

You touched on a pretty significant point here.
Perimeter defense was WAY different during Jordan's era, so was the way guards handled offense. No way the NBA is what it is today with hand-check and the way they called fouls back then. Also, no zone defense also meant that spacing was waaaay different.
I'm not saying it's any better or worse by it (your opinion on this will probably lean to when you first really started watching), but it was just another game.

[dice]

This is something I've spoken of quite a few times.
I've watched a TON of games (full) in the 80s, Jordan at his peak and prior.

It's important to know that Jordan almost never took 3's. The bulk of his 3's were far-away or contested buzzer beaters. That's why his percentages are abysmal.

To believe that this guy could score at will, hanging in the air, near the 3 point line, have an absurd free throw percentage, but hit .167 of 3's is a ridiculous notion (I'm not addressing you, but the myth created by ... well whomever).

Whenever he chose to shoot 3's, his percentages were really good. Like, really good.
And yes, this includes before the 3 point line was shifted closer, like in his first three-peat, where he shot .430 from the arc in the finals collectively on very high volume for the time.

And it's not just my watching that knows this, but Jordan confirmed this himself, stating that he can hit 3's and chooses not to, then demolishing Clyde with a 3-point barrage. It should also be mentioned that the perimeter was guarded very close back then because you could hand-check and push back whenever someone drove, and fouls weren't called if light.

You touched on a pretty significant point here.
Perimeter defense was WAY different during Jordan's era, so was the way guards handled offense. No way the NBA is what it is today with hand-check and the way they called fouls back then. Also, no zone defense also meant that spacing was waaaay different.
I'm not saying it's any better or worse by it (your opinion on this will probably lean to when you first really started watching), but it was just another game.

the notion that jordan "could hit 3s and chose not to" is a completely laughable tall-tale that only the most weirdly slavish devotee to "mythical mike" would entertain as the truth



and the suggestion that "the bulk of his 3s were far-away (?) or contested buzzer beaters" is also obviously completely fabricated

why anybody would commit their time and energy to engage in this sort of deep tissue massaging of MJ's legacy is beyond my comprehension

if MJ had a high level of ability to shoot the 3 and instead chose to focus his time and energy on grinding it out in the post to develop a fadeaway, he was one of the dumbest basketball players around. particularly as his %s INSIDE the arc were dwindling late in his career (and there's no explaining that away). michael jordan was a lot of things as a player, but dumb is not one of them

[MrSparkle]

Well... in the last playoffs he seemed to be off on that mid-range game than before. Sure, some amazing streches but I some where nothing was going in.

I ended with the impression that he didn't make his first shot in all his games in the finals...

But that could be fatigue of going 35 playing lots of minutes all season long.

Yeah, it's pretty crazy when you consider his age, the eras he played through (85-98 sports science, even the advances in sneaker design after the 80s), Pippen missing half that last season and just the average age of those guys. While Phil and that roster were super high IQ and perfect complimentary players, it's really crazy that a 35yo dude could pick up the slack with Pippen's injury and close a finals series against a very strong and balanced 5-man unit with 45 points in 44 minutes. It must've been a mix of great luck and great training, but it's remarkable when you compare to most stars who are shells of their old selves after they hit 32. Kudos to Lebron for still going strong.

But no doubt he had some clunker moments throughout that entire season, particularly rough starts. He almost always came through at the end of games though.

[bledredwine]

This is something I've spoken of quite a few times.
I've watched a TON of games (full) in the 80s, Jordan at his peak and prior.

It's important to know that Jordan almost never took 3's. The bulk of his 3's were far-away or contested buzzer beaters. That's why his percentages are abysmal.

To believe that this guy could score at will, hanging in the air, near the 3 point line, have an absurd free throw percentage, but hit .167 of 3's is a ridiculous notion (I'm not addressing you, but the myth created by ... well whomever).

Whenever he chose to shoot 3's, his percentages were really good. Like, really good.
And yes, this includes before the 3 point line was shifted closer, like in his first three-peat, where he shot .430 from the arc in the finals collectively on very high volume for the time.

And it's not just my watching that knows this, but Jordan confirmed this himself, stating that he can hit 3's and chooses not to, then demolishing Clyde with a 3-point barrage. It should also be mentioned that the perimeter was guarded very close back then because you could hand-check and push back whenever someone drove, and fouls weren't called if light.

You touched on a pretty significant point here.
Perimeter defense was WAY different during Jordan's era, so was the way guards handled offense. No way the NBA is what it is today with hand-check and the way they called fouls back then. Also, no zone defense also meant that spacing was waaaay different.
I'm not saying it's any better or worse by it (your opinion on this will probably lean to when you first really started watching), but it was just another game.

the notion that jordan "could hit 3s and chose not to" is a completely laughable tall-tale that only the most weirdly slavish devotee to "mythical mike" would entertain as the truth



and the suggestion that "the bulk of his 3s were far-away (?) or contested buzzer beaters" is also obviously completely fabricated

why anybody would commit their time and energy to engage in this sort of deep tissue massaging of MJ's legacy is beyond my comprehension

if MJ had a high level of ability to shoot the 3 and instead chose to focus his time and energy on grinding it out in the post to develop a fadeaway, he was one of the dumbest basketball players around. particularly as his %s INSIDE the arc were dwindling late in his career (and there's no explaining that away). michael jordan was a lot of things as a player, but dumb is not one of them

Fabricated? You didn’t provide even a bit of logic in your post. Do you really think his .3 3pa a game was wide open?
Well dice, now I know that you have yet to watch literally any 80s Jordan games.

Or to know any of the stats on when Jordan put up 2+ 3’s, playoffs included,

Or to know that you didn’t get a ton of room to shoot them back then, and so on.

This coming from a guy who thought Deng was better than Paul George and Harden an equal scorer to Jordan, I can’t say that I’m surprised.

Are you telling me that Jordan could hit deep fadeaways, hyper efficient free throws, contested shots, but couldn’t hit open threes?

Go ahead and give me just one other example of a player like this. Then, I’ll even consider your post remotely credible. But bottom line, you don’t like Jordan and dismiss whenever you get the chance. Still, I’ll wait for that mythical player.

Finally, Jordan shot the league average 3 pt% even when you include his buzzer beating/no 3 seasons, shooting well above when he took threes (playoff series before the shortened line included!), whereas players like Lebron and Westbrook shoot well below league average, so condemning Jordan for that in the 80s/90s is ignorant regardless.